Recreational Property Act Protects City from Claims of Spectator Hit by Falling Skydiver

The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the City of Euharlee could not be liable for injuries the plaintiff suffered when she was hit by a skydiver whose parachute partially failed because of immunity bestowed by the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A § 51-3-20.  Lowry v. Cochran, Case No. A10A0931, Decided June 1, 2010.  As a result, the Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment for the City.  In this case the plaintiff was injured when she was hit by a skydiver whose parachute collapsed.  This occurred at a City of Euharlee Park during a festival that included a skydiving demonstration.  The plaintiff was standing just outside the landing area at the time.  She sued numerous parties including the city, the skydiver, and an inspector who approved the landing area.  The City moved for summary judgment and the trial court denied the motion, finding among other things that the City was not immune from suit under the Recreational Property Act. 

The Recreational Property Act states that its purpose is to encourage both public and private landowners to make their property available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the liability of the landowner.  The Act provides that when a landowner invites or permits without charge any person to use its property for recreational purposes, it may not be held liable for personal injuries resulting from any act or omission of the landowner unless such injuries resulted from a "willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity."  Although the city charged a nominal parking fee for the festival, Georgia case law is settled that such a nominal parking fee is not a "charge"for purposes of the Recreational Property Act.  The plaintiff argued that the city willfully failed to warn of dangers related to the skydiving demonstration, but the Court found that the record was replete with evidence of warnings to the spectators, such that at most the question of the adequacy of any warning would be a question of negligence, and not of willfulness.  Because of the Recreational Property Act the city could not be included in the negligence suit against the other parties.  As an aside, the plaintiff also argued that the City could be held strictly liable for conducting an inherently dangerous activity with the skydiving show.  The Court noted that there is no law concluding that skydiving is inherently dangerous to spectators, and rejected the claim.